165 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Maybe that's why they're so bad.

Bad?

I thought she had way more interesting lines than any of the other human teammates.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 18 juin 2011 - 05:24 .

[NICKjnp]

If you pay extra for those in-game bonuses for the collector's edition then they should not be sold later. If they are labeled as exclusive content then everyone else should be excluded from getting it later....otherwise they are not getting what they paid for.

[Babli]

EA...its in the game.

(if you buy DLC or preorder)

[SalsaDMA]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

[Paulinius]

The market will determine if the DLC trend will continue or not. If it's profitable, you will see more of it.

Think bottled water.

[Paulinius]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

If that was the case, a lawyer would have already jumped at the chance of bringing suit and making a multimillion dollar payday.

[Smeelia]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

That could easily go the other way and have a set amount of content for all games established, meaning that future games can justify cutting content and selling it as DLC because it's "more than standard" (although they could also give more than the standard amount as a selling point).  I don't think it's so straightforward to measure content in a game really, a multiplayer game may only have a few maps and a character advancement system but that can give a lot to players.  Similarly, RPGs tend to have loads of content but still only get the same price per sale.  On a sort of related note, I wonder if The Old Republic is a test to see if they can start selling subscription-based single-player RPGs (to offset the extra cost of making so much content).

Closer to the main topic, I can see why giving bonuses for buying new seems like a good way to avoid second-hand sales but I'd much rather that they targetted the retailers who are selling second-hand games (while the developers don't get a cut).  Targetting customers generally isn't the best way to deal with that sort of situation and they risk drawing hate on themselves and driving customers away without actually improving things at all.

All that said, I don't mind getting new characters as part of DLC.  I would like to see them tie into the game more effectively (Kasumi and Zaeed had some good lines but you didn't really get to chat with them properly) but that's just a minor point really.

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I don't know if we can be certain of that. I remember when the devs were first discussing ME2 and called it 'the dirty dozen in space' and such, could easily be taken to mean that the original outlines for ME2 included all 12 squadmates, but due to time constraints/resources or whatever they got cut/demoted to DLC content.

Not proof by any means, but I remember a bunch of people thinking ME2 would have 12 squadmates earlier on.

It's not exactly proof but the Codex entry for the shuttle mentions that it can hold 12 people (plus two pilots, I wonder who actually pilots the thing).  That could just mean that they planned to add characters (bringing the total to 12) by the time the game was released (which seems fair enough).

http://masseffect.wi...ak_Drop_Shuttle

Modifié par Smeelia, 18 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[The Smoking Man]

Paulinius wrote...

Inflationary pressures are compressing profit margins for the gaming industry. Unlike other industries, such as manufacturing, it is difficult for the gaming industry to increase prices. Especially when someone can easily pirate a game. DLC's are one way that firms in the industry can increase their margins. The company gets more money using less resources than making a whole new game and the customer gets new content. It's a win-win situation, in my opinion. Unless you want $60 or $70 games.

/I only play on the PC so $50 is (usually) the highest a game sells for, but it's $60 for consoles IIRC.

You might not have noticed, but game prices have been rising by $10 increments. Some PC games are starting to go for $60 now thanks to the trend Activision set with Black Ops; all PC games will soon, and then $70 console games are in order, and the cycle continues.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I only downloaded Shale because it was a free download, and I had the PC version.  I have Mass Effect on the 360, however, and I don't have internet access on consoles.

I have a genuine dislike for DLC, especially the kind that you have to pay for.

[Wolfborn Son]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

Except it isn't.  I can't think of a single case where any DLC is required to play the game.  Shale is a great character, but you don't need her.  Sebastien is the same and I didn't even have him in my first DAII playthrough and still loved the game.  And I don't have any of the character-based DLC for ME2 yet. 

Bioware EA games are complete when you buy them, even with Day 1 DLC.  Can the DLC make it a better experience? Certainly, I know Shale made my second Origins playthrough a blast - but do you need it? Absolutely not.

[Images]

I'm agreeing with the others about Sebastian in DA2. Was a complete joke how you had to pre-order a signature edition to get him free. WIthout him you don't care in the slightest about the grand cleric or the chantry really.

A bonus DLC character should be just that, a bonus. You shouldn't be made to feel like there's a hole in your experience.

[Flashlegend]

Wolfborn Son wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

Except it isn't.  I can't think of a single case where any DLC is required to play the game.  Shale is a great character, but you don't need her.  Sebastien is the same and I didn't even have him in my first DAII playthrough and still loved the game.  And I don't have any of the character-based DLC for ME2 yet. 

Bioware EA games are complete when you buy them, even with Day 1 DLC.  Can the DLC make it a better experience? Certainly, I know Shale made my second Origins playthrough a blast - but do you need it? Absolutely not.

Very true. DLC isn't needed for a game to be complete. Also, when talking specifically about Day 1 DLC, many people don't realize that in the past, that content would be cut completely from a game. Right before a game is release, there is a period of 8-12 weeks where what's on the disc can't be altered at all(debug, shipping, etc) but developers still have time to work. Most Day 1 DLC is content that is finished up in this time period and released as DLC.

[shadowreflexion]

 Sorry. But many people in this thread are really misinformed about things not being in game already. This was posted by a forum member 3 days ago. If you take the time to listen to what's being said, it may enlighten your views to this topic. The forum member's name is CPT Eightball. Here's the original link he posted with the information.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'm not oppsed to personally paying for DLC but it's more about the morality of doing so. The question basically is do you feel the need to pay for something that was already completed and integrated into the game but removed to become DLC? If you don't believe the OP then delete Kasumi's DLC if you have it and then do the SM in ME2. You'll be able to choose her character without the hood when deciding on who to send where.
Kasumi is included in the finished game but you just can't use her until the suicide mission.

Here's the thread that was originally posted by CPT Eightball.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/7648588

Modifié par shadowreflexion, 18 juin 2011 - 07:21 .

[SalsaDMA]

Paulinius wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

If that was the case, a lawyer would have already jumped at the chance of bringing suit and making a multimillion dollar payday.

Not really. I didn't see that happeneing when phone companies and travel agencies got hit with the beltstrap for doing these things.

[SalsaDMA]

Wolfborn Son wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

In all honesty, with the way DLCs are used by now, I'm surprised authorities haven't stepped in and started looking things over.

Considered the way different sectors have been strong armed into changing their price routines, and still are being examined now and then, it's a wonder that the usage of DLCs to obscure prices for a given product haven't been brought to attention yet. Maybe it's because it's still a relatively new thing in the industry (seen in a broad perspective), and authorities just haven't realized the extent DLCs are starting to be used by companies to obscure products versus prices.

Yeah, let's call the Cyber Police. I can get you in touch with a guy, they can back-trace Bioware and make them stop putting out DLC. Consequences will never be the same!

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

Be happy that some people do, so you aren't getting the shaft in the rear everytime you buy any given product.

Price obscuring is a way for companies to make it unclear for the consumer how much or what they are actually paying for. It's been combatted by authorities in alot of different fields to protect consumer interests, like travel agencies and phone companies, just to give some of the top examples.

EAs current usage of DLCs is practically the same as what companies in other sectors have gotten stomped on for doing, so don't be surprised if one day they have to do things differently in order to appease legislations.

Except it isn't.  I can't think of a single case where any DLC is required to play the game.  Shale is a great character, but you don't need her.  Sebastien is the same and I didn't even have him in my first DAII playthrough and still loved the game.  And I don't have any of the character-based DLC for ME2 yet. 

Bioware EA games are complete when you buy them, even with Day 1 DLC.  Can the DLC make it a better experience? Certainly, I know Shale made my second Origins playthrough a blast - but do you need it? Absolutely not.

What product are you, as the consumer, getting when you buy ME3?

You cannot give a clear answer to that question, because it depends on whom you buy it from, when you buy it, and maybe even where you buy it. Buy it from shop A, get this DLC. Buy from shop B to get that DLC. Buy it at timepoint Y to get thus DLC.

It's price obscuring in the clearest example, as the actual product you are getting isn't just about going to a random shop and saying: "I want to buy ME3" and then you get an identical product to anyone else; but about you, the consumer, having to go through shedloads of info to find out how you can buy the product you actually want and what you are actually paying for it depending on how you get it.

[In Exile]

KLUME777 wrote...

For Sebastion though, your a BioDrone if you really think he couldn't make his dev time. Because he was never made for the original in the first place. He was advertised as an extra bonus months before, something they could have put in the game. He WASN"T free to everyone, only those who pre-ordered the Signature edition. Therefore legitimate customers missed out, because he was fairly important at the end.

Sebastien is a clear rip-out from the main game, and i cannot see Bioware doing something like this when they were making a great like KoTOR. Imagine if HK-47 was a DLC character? Just imagine?

Well, what matters is the budget, the certification period and the expectation, If Sebastian was made by a separate team ( we can call them the DLC team), designed separate from the game, QA'd alone, and then re-integrated in the game during the 1-month from certification to release using a different budget, I'd say that counts as DLC content in and of itself and not cut-contet we're being charged for

But this is impossible to know. We basically either take Bioware's word for it or not.

As for DLC - Bioware was experimenting with this in NWN as 'premium' modules. DLC was part of their business model pre KoTOR.

Anyway, all of this is really just part of EA's Project $10.

[Sidney]

SalsaDMA wrote...

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

What rights are being violated? The game you buy is complete. There is nothing that Shale is required for. The game is dozens of hours long without Shale and only marginally longer with her. Pre-order DLC is an incentive to get people to buy something at a time when they would not normally buy things (before it is released). This is functionally no different than a restaurant offering 2 for 1 appetizers between 4 and 6 or a car company offered a rebate during a slow sales period.

[Son of Illusive Man]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

People who buy second hand games do not contribute anything towards the development of said game. They only contribute towards the profit margin of the second hand dealer.
If they didnt have some form of incentive for people who bought the game new, then a lot more people would buy second hand, and the developers of games you know and love would not have the budget to continue bringing out as many games as you would like.

Its the same how some car dealers offer 1 (or more) years free servicing with every new ehicle purchase. Or would you argue that car dealers should give away a years free service to any used piece of junk they have sitting on the lot?

There's a difference between an ongoing service and content.

I'm already paying for Xbox Live, and willing to pay a la carte for each DLC item.

Just like used book sales don't benefit the publisher, neither do used game sales.  Guess what?  They find other ways to deal with it.  Hell, there are even HUGE LIBRARIES of books.

This would be like a publisher of a book taking out a chapter and putting in a page that says, "Go to www.xyz.com/booktitle and enter in your authentication code (1 time use only) to read chapter n.  There's a difference between new stuff and things that were meant to be in the game.

[SalsaDMA]

Sidney wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

You don't care much about consumer rights, do you?

What rights are being violated? The game you buy is complete. There is nothing that Shale is required for. The game is dozens of hours long without Shale and only marginally longer with her. Pre-order DLC is an incentive to get people to buy something at a time when they would not normally buy things (before it is released). This is functionally no different than a restaurant offering 2 for 1 appetizers between 4 and 6 or a car company offered a rebate during a slow sales period.

Wrong.

In your examples. you know the product you are given, and how much you are paying for it.

When you buy ME3 (or DA2 for that matter, where they really showcased the issue) you don't really know the product you are getting unless you examine which DLC follows which seller and how to get what DLC as "bonus" from where. In short, the actual product you are receiving differs and prices for the product varies in ways that are not immediately clear for the consumer just by looking at a random price tag saying "ME3 - xxx euro".

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 18 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[Sidney]

SalsaDMA wrote...

When you buy ME3 (or DA2 for that matter, where they really showcased the issue) you don't really know the product you are getting unless you examine which DLC follows which seller and how to get what DLC as "bonus" from where.

Oh, now I see your argument is you are lazy and do not want to have to research what you are spending your money on. Clears things up.

You do know what product you are buying, you are buying ME3 or DA2. Oddly enough you would be ok if there were NO bonus items avauilable - not all of them added in just not there at all.  So your victory for consumer rights leaves consumers with less "goods" for the same price.

Your logic about "suprises" is no different than claiming that the amuse bouche sent out from the kitchen violates your rights because you never know what that might be at a different restaurant or god forbid at different times in the same restaurant.

[Abirn]

I think I may be the only one but I have more of a problem with exclusive DLC then character DLC.

There better not be exclusive character DLC. All DLC should be available for anybody with the game to purchase...... Still waiting to buy the terminus armor and blackhole gun......

[Da_Lion_Man]

I agree, it's really lame.
It's one of the many problematic DLCs we're getting these days.
You should always give the consumer a complete game, no matter how he got the game. I consider a character a major component even if he is irrelevant to the story, it's not of the same league as say an extra weapon.

I understand it's not that simple and Bioware and EA want to make money but this is starting to get ridiculous. I can see it now, in the next generation the ending of the next Bioware game and many others will be DLC.

[MajorStranger]

Maybe this video might help you understand why DLC is now a key component of the video game industry and how this allow us to have all those AAA games coming out.

www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2068-Project-Ten-Dollar

[Son of Illusive Man]

Sidney wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

When you buy ME3 (or DA2 for that matter, where they really showcased the issue) you don't really know the product you are getting unless you examine which DLC follows which seller and how to get what DLC as "bonus" from where.

Oh, now I see your argument is you are lazy and do not want to have to research what you are spending your money on. Clears things up.

While I agree, this has nothing to do with "rights", I have to say it's a sleazy strategy, akin to putting an asterisk and some small text at the bottom about hidden charges.